Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

Brian,
Pleeze brush up your French, merci beaucoup!

I listened to Ab Irato's radio show last night and the issue was raised about how the researchers at CF are so adept at spotting fakery, as well as the speed at which the images are acquired for analysis. The constant vetting, due diligence, divining the motives of researchers and making determinations as to whether they are shills or simply unwilling or unable to be informed is exhausting.

I am of the opinion that the researchers here have technical expertise in their respective field of videography and photography, combined with hours of poring over the digital evidence that make analysis expeditious. Of course there are other elements of investigation, such as sourcing and curriculum vitae that help in drawing conclusions or dismissing things out of hand.

There are a few of us that are generally interested in sharpening our eyes and abilities. If the motivation of CF is to offer the world a way to see behind the curtain, certainly more researchers with the desire to quickly and expertly spot anomalies and contradictions should be welcome. The rabbit trail is long and winding, it takes a few turns to end up at CF. Every new visitor may not have the breadth of experience of the veterans, I don't see the harm in offering a quick explanation of how or why conclusions are reached.

It's easy to forget that the veterans here are doing handstands and cartwheels on a high-wire over a mile high canyon while most get vertigo walking up a flight of stairs.

simonshack wrote:Brian,
Pleeze brush up your French, merci beaucoup!

La plume de ma tante.
Le singe est dans l'arbre.
...

blindedbyscience wrote:

icarusinbound wrote:
There's a massive issue with the fundamental reality in this footage. Please people, note what appears to happen between the very start of the video, and through to the 1m17sec point. At the start, the vantage point is immediately above the focus of interest. There is then a large unrepresented/imperceptible horizontal 'movement' of the point-of-view towards the south that is not consistent with the represented movement of the helicopter. It gets to where it's looking from, slant-angle, without fully-making a credible manoeuvre (to the south?)[/I].

This aspect is just so jarringly-implausible that it needs attention now, before attempting to analyse any finer details of depicted reality. Irrespective of motion compensation camera mounts, focus/depth-of-field being pulled in synch with departure speed of aircraft, it's just too fast/smooth/unrealistic a POV movement from direct overhead to, say, 400metres away.

And this is just for starters...

Having recently watched September Clues, the zoom in reminded me of the 17 second cue before the second "explosion" at the WTC. Interesting that you mention the 1 min 17 second point.

Purely because within that 1m00sec to 1m17sec there is a lightning-fast translocation of the helicopter from being physically beside the school roof-end, to being hundreds of metres/yards away. It's too smooth.

And what happens to the rooftiles on the non-carpark sloping side, from about 0m44sec to 0m59sec? Is it a rendering fault, lower right of frame, fringe aliaising, or what? It goes insanely patchy/strobing, briefly.

But come on, is that zoom-pan real? Really real?

icarusinbound wrote: But come on, is that zoom-pan real? Really real?

Hardly... If we are to accept it as real, we must believe that the zoom-levels of that "chopper camera" are capable to stay focused and framed on a given spot on the ground while precisely compensating/adjusting to the chopper motion. In fact, that visual aberration is a classic example of what I reckon is a still unsolved problem by the designers of those "3D" imaging softwares (which, of course, try ever harder to simulate real-world video capture) :

The relation between physical camera displacement / versus camera zoom-levels.

Since 9/11, the image resolution of these digitally-crafted "chopper shots" has improved, yet the brains and spatial / optical cognitive skills of the numbheads behind these scams appear to remain stagnant.

********
I'm reposting the relevant video here (watch between 0:03 and 1:17 to understand the issue discussed) :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2ITHV6k-U


P.S. (to the fakery perps): You are welcome to click the donate button at the bottom of this page - in appreciation of the help this forum is providing you to improve the efficiency of your mass deceptions.

Could you elaborate on your fakery scenario.

Are you saying a helicopter DID NOT take these pictures ? Are you suggesting that these are simply computer generated images ?

How about military drones ? Could they have technology or technically advanced cameras that could do what this camera does ?

I agree it is a bit un-nerving to see it zoom in and out with such crystal clarity. Maybe we should write to News 12 and ask them what kind of camera was in their helicopter that morning.

But could you explain a bit clearer what you think is going on ...

Cheers

Ahatmose wrote: Are you saying a helicopter DID NOT take these pictures ? Are you suggesting that these are simply computer generated images ?

It is a possibility. More analyses are needed to determine this beyond doubt - but it is a possibility.

Here's what can be done today with computer generated imagery (sorry for the gory parts, but keep in mind that it's all artificial - it is NOT real.) I trust the below example may give you a better idea of what I'm talking about - more so than anything I could express in a million words...

Please note: the "aerial imagery" (between 0:15 and 0:26) with those zombies walking around the streets looks pretty realistic. And so do the folks we see walking around the Sandy Hook parking lot:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWc9U-_tXWw

Watch also the very unnatural zoom-in motion between 0:36 and 0:39. Of course, this is the short of shot to be found in action movies - but the same technology may well be used for these psyops - obviously in a less spectacular / cinematic manner.

It is a possibility. More analyses are needed to determine this beyond doubt - but it is a possibility.

I strongly disagree. There is no way computer animation could generate those images and those people. They are real and the entire site is real. I might suggest you start by finding out what type of camera News 12 had and studying it's capabilities before suggesting it was all a cartoon.

.

Ahatmose wrote: I strongly disagree. There is no way computer animation could generate those images and those people. They are real and the entire site is real. I might suggest you start by finding out what type of camera News 12 had and studying it's capabilities before suggesting it was all a cartoon.
.

Dear Ahatmose,

I did not suggest it was all a cartoon. I only stated that it is a possibility that the Sandy Hook "aerial helicopter" imagery may have been crafted with this technology:



As you can see, those people walking around here are real - but they have been inserted into a fake environment.
I suggest that you look up our thread dedicated to this specific issue:
Fabricating Realistic Sceneries http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... e#p2346352

There is is something that I am having difficulty with.

If the helicopter footage is "faked" (and I have no reason to question Simon's assessment) what is it's purpose?

It seems to be showing evidence that the Sandy Hook affair was a large deception. There is nothing going on near the school, all the action is around the firehouse, the ambulance and emergency vehicles are blocked in . The parents activities looks more like one would expect to see if they were registering their children for the football team than if they were responding to news that there were shootings, and deaths in the school where there children were attending. I saw few if any children in the video itself and not even one of twenty sets of frantic parents frantically trying to get past the yellow tape and closer to the school to find their "missing" child.

The question is , who would go to the trouble of faking a video that "proves" the event did not occur and (allegedly) show the video on the news? What could be the purpose behind such a move?

Just when I thought that I was understanding that this was just another faked media "non-event", I am more confused than ever.

regards,

Steve O.

omaxsteve wrote:
The question is , who would go to the trouble of faking a video that "proves" the event did not occur and (allegedly) show the video on the news? What could be the purpose behind such a move?

I have those same questions Steve. I'm starting to think that "they" are wanting more people to catch on to the fakery machine. Within the last month, there have been what I consider to be a record number of hoax reports, videos, and even a featured CNN story about the Florida professor who is calling SH fake. If there's one thing I've learned, it is when the government says "Look left" you'd better look right. Is a much bigger, REAL event planned?

Since it appears we can glean, in hindsight. the predictive imagery in movies and TV, what is the more recent imagery suggesting will happen in the near future?

They are real and the entire site is real. I might suggest you start by finding out what type of camera News 12 had and studying it's capabilities before suggesting it was all a cartoon.

And who (refrains from swearing while still under caution period) are you exactly to be so dogmatic and demanding of us ?

omaxsteve wrote: The question is , who would go to the trouble of faking a video that "proves" the event did not occur and (allegedly) show the video on the news? What could be the purpose behind such a move?

Dear omaxsteve,

Your question raises a quite valid and central point which, in fact, we should keep focusing upon (so let us for now leave aside this "helicopter" footage, which neither proves or disproves that people were killed in Sandy Hook either way).

What is, indeed, the purpose to stage a psyop in such 'clumsy' manner - piss-poor acting / photo-fakery and all?

Why does this latest shooting psyop almost seem to ASK for being exposed for what it is? Well, allow me to just link back to two previous posts of mine - for those who might have missed them :

THE 'SHAME' FACTOR
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2379893

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTOR
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2380177

Regarding the most recent questionable video, I looked up News Chopper 12 in Connecticut, and there is a photo that appears to come from the video on their news site. However, to view the video, one must be a paying viewer of this "cable only" network. Here's the link to the page where a single photo is. There are links off to the right side for video, but it's subscription only.

http://connecticut.news12.com/police-sh ... 33680?qr=1

Thanks SImon, I appreciate your ability to make sense of the illogical. What tends to happen, among my circles when the topic of fakery comes up, (whether 911, Sandy Hooak, Aurora, Red Bull) is that those who still do not accept that the media is regularly broadcasting faked, "hollywood style" events, also use the argument " how do we know that the video you are using to demonstrate fakery has not itself been faked or manipulated?"

I would consider some of these people to be above average intelligence and my impression is that rather than accept the fact the government is conspiring with the media in staging and broadcasting these "fake" events, they prefer to believe that there is a group of "conspiracy theorists" who take the real events , doctor the images and then use the doctored images as proof that the event was faked.

If my circle is representative of a large number of the population, I suppose the best strategy that the "perps" can deploy is one of obfuscation. By inserting obvious fakes, within the original (good?) fake footage, it allows those who choose not to believe the (government/media) conspiracy some ammunition to use when confronted by others (like me ) who challenge their acceptance of the official story.

If anyone can follow what I am trying to say, and if it is accurate, the chances of exposing media fakery to the "masses" is has become significantly more difficult. One needs not only to prove that the event was staged, but also that the official (original) photo and video evidence was not tampered with. Since our best evidence is showing that the video/photo evidence has been faked, it is quite a challenge to then claim that it was not tampered with or modified to show fakery, rather than to expose it.

Now that I think of it, what drew me towards September Clues in the first place was the introduction. Paraphrasing, "the best, and perhaps only, evidence of fakery that the perps left behind is in the thousands of VCR video recordings of the original live broadcasts_)

Sorry for rambling, I find when I am confused putting my thoughts in writing helps me to untangle them.

regards,

Steve O.